March 25, 2011

This morning, Meade went down to the Capitol to meet with our state senator, Fred Risser, who's been a Wisconsin senator since 1962. (He's the longest serving state legislator in the United States.) It's been much harder to get to see our assemblyman, Brett Hulsey. You remember what happened yesterday. Today, after seeing Risser, Meade happened to run into Hulsey.

There was this Planned Parenthood rally. It looked like this:

That's Hulsey standing in front just behind the woman in the white jacket. (Enlargement here.) That's Risser in the red hat just below the speaker's upraised fist. Hulsey noticed Meade. Meade waved at him and he looked away. A bit later, Hulsey was talking to some women who had come to the rally. And Meade was video-recording. Actually, this was a set-up photo-op, and Meade positioned himself so he had the ideal vantage point. Then, when Hulsey starts walking back toward the Capitol, Meade calls out in the hope of finally getting a few words....

How long until you start believing your own lying eyes and ears? You think you're doing good, but all you're doing is electing liars, thieves, and whores. You justify it by saying, I did the best I could with the best of a bad lot, and I hope for the best.

Hope is not a strategy. The Repocrats and Depublicans have got the game rigged. All they want is your money, so they can give it to their friends. They care about what they care about, and it ain't Wisconsin.

The game won't change until you do one of two things: en masse either never vote for an incumbent, or vote for 3rd party candidates. They won't do good for <yourState> until you really put the fear of God in them. Until and unless that happens, they will continue to treat you as what you are: just pay up suckas!

Looks like Hulsey has been in an axe fight without an axe. In the process he seems to have a missing tooth. I guess nobody has told him about the fine dental plan available to Wisconsin officials. They also didn't tell him that only WV legislatures can attend rallies without their partial plates.

You realize of course, if you raise taxes, rich people and businesses start fleeing your state. They move to Texas or Indiana. Or they close their doors, because they can no longer make a go of it. You raise taxes, and then collect less revenue, while simultaneously increasing the social-services safety net costs, because you now have a bunch of newly-unemployed citizens who aren't rich enough to flee.

He looks likes a young boy who was told by his mother not to talk to strangers. By "mother" I mean union bosses.

How embarrassing that you actually voted for this guy. I know the other guy was worse, but that this is the level of person that wins is embarrassing.

I used to be naive and believed that politician were regular people like the rest of us. God, I hope not. Most people I know would stand there, and tell you what they think, and answer politely asked questions like a decent human being, EVEN IF IT WASN'T THEIR JOB.

You realize of course, if you raise taxes, rich people and businesses start fleeing your state. They move to Texas or Indiana. Or they close their doors, because they can no longer make a go of it. You raise taxes, and then collect less revenue, while simultaneously increasing the social-services safety net costs, because you now have a bunch of newly-unemployed citizens who aren't rich enough to flee.

This change of heart might reflect his realization that your wife's blog is very popular and he may be hoping to score points with some of the more liberal readers of this blog. Maybe he is concerned about same party competition during the next election.

shouting t: My main question is How do you propose we balance the state budget if the Budget Repair bill fails to become law?

The "budget repair bill" doesn't balance the budget. Unless of course you can show us how passage of it does just that, which I'm assuming you cannot do. What you might think about doing is chase down one of the Fitzgeralds and ask them how passage of the "budget repair bill" balances the budget.

Corporations don't pay taxes. They simply pass it on to their customers, you for one. Of course, to remain competitive, they may relocate to a state with a more favorable tax structure, like my dear ole Tennessee.

The rich can leave Wisconsin just as easily, much more easily than the middle class.

I think that no video-taping is a reasonable request. He may be worried about being misrepresented (not that I think that Meade or Althouse would do that). But if he demands that the meeting be off the record? Unacceptable.

He has the power to stop Meade from recording, but he didn't use it. It's a little rhetorical trick known as saying "please don't". I think it would have worked, but he never thought of it, because his head is so full of warning messages telling him "Danger, Enemy, Meade will expose you!", but he IS being exposed.

Simply answering Meade's questions would be smart and honorable, but he does not chose to. That says it all.Is there any doubt that this guy would use force to restrict speech if he could?

Your Assemblyman, Brett Hulsey, has one of the widest gaps between his two front teeth. Just like Alfred E. Newman.

As to his remark, now, that "you're a journalist" and you "don't have permission to record him," in a public space; only means he's getting legal advice from that cud chewing lawyer.

(Good that you got a phone call from Hulsey's office, with an appointment time. And, he requests no recording devices. An opportunity almost made for James O'Keefe to show up disguised as Groucho Marx.)

Well, Meade, the hostile approach, the finger jabbing, the ambushing, the approaching with camera rolling is all a bit unusual and hostile.

We all know there's a whole genre of these self-made cyber paparazzi such as Meade who just try to make people look bad on the net. No sense being petulant and accusatory just because people won't help you make them look bad. Come on, lighten up. Relax, have a home brew.

We all know there's a whole genre of these self-made cyber paparazzi such as Meade who just try to make people look bad on the net. No sense being petulant and accusatory just because people won't help you make them look bad. Come on, lighten up. Relax, have a home brew.

Not my sense that Meade wants to make Hulsey look bad. What made Hulsey look bad was refusing to meet with a constituent. Hulsey looks better now, doesn't he.

I don't remember Meade being petulant and accusatory. You made that up. You have a tendency to make things up.

In any event, I'm willing to suspend judgment and wait for the results of the confab. It's a good thing that Hulsey has decided to meet with Meade. Hulsey has an obligation to hear his constituents.

Because this is generally a good forum and the commenters are generally very intelligent.

Totally disagree, it's a typical Goggle political blog w/a 100% political slant ie conservative. If AA wanted to be taken seriously, she would upgrade her blog and require membership.

AA has definitive Rep meme, which is fine, but most political discussions here end up going nowhere, like every other political blog, legitimate or otherwise. Just fools yellin' at each other ad nauseam.

shoutingthomas, do you expect to change anyone's mind about anything here?

A lot of women recognize Planned Parenthood for what it is. A political cash cow at best and a eugenics/murder cult at worst.It has nothing to do with "women's rights" and myself and many other women are not fooled.

If this were a "conservative echo chamber", would you and your fellow moonbats be allowed to speak your minds on this blog? Wouldn't your posts be deleted?

Yes, otherwise it would be a 100% conservative circle jerk ie a total :::zzzz::: er waste.

At many political blogs/forums, thread starters are allowed from both sides of the political spectrum and many political sites publish "guest" articles w/opposing viewpoints, otherwise you just get ad nauseam ITA posts.

But I do find it amusing when AA's sheep "try" to defend her constant conservative viewpoint, sayin' she is open-minded and not a strict ideologue.

Non sequiturs notwithstanding, I just post what I think and my very first impression of this blog after (1) day was that it was a totally conservative blog. Which is fine ~ different strokes for different folks.

Fox New has a large audience, signifying the audience's dissatisfaction with the one sided, leftist bias that was all that was previously available.

The U.S. is a center-right society in its political outlook. The mass media, which is the old network TV stations, and the major metropolitan dailies, were overwhelmingly leftist.

Fox has won the marketplace by presenting conservative viewpoints. Of course, Fox does exactly what it says on its hard news programs. It presents both sides of the story. This drives leftists like you to apoplexy, because you prefer the old system under which only your views were published.

To address the question of budget repair alternatives, I suggest offering Brett Hulsey 3-5 minutes of uninterrupted airtime. Then post the video here, his response unedited - an exclusive Althouse/Brett Hulsey thread, with an invitation for Brett to respond to the subsequent comments.

It is my impression that Hulsey is a fair man, and would respond favorably to a fair offer - especially one that allows him to project his message beyond the chanting choir.

I've read left leaning comments on this blog. I've even seen civilized discussion as a result. Sure, there might be some poking fun when someone makes a really crazy statement without backing it up, and sometimes the discussion gets a little nit picky, but on the whole it seems pretty tame. I don't understand why someone would repeatedly claim, comment after comment, how this blog is ultra conservative and everyone here are sheep. It seems kinda trollish. I read this blog for entertainment and to listen to (read, yes I can read) other people's opinions. I look forward to opinions from the left and the right, weak and strong. That's why I keep coming back to this blog.

Shiloh, do you have anything to say besides calling me a conservative blind follower?

You would think a legislator would know the difference between say a hidden recording or telephone conversation recording, which he can ask about and request it be stopped from a public encounter in which the recording is known and he could just reply appropriately.

Seems to me the more he puts it off the more publicity he will get. Having the discussion would have most likely meant a one time blogging event and Meade moves on. Now he is scared, hence his phony authorization comments. Notice how politicians like Hulsey, react when faced with a situation they cannot control?

Might be time to write a letter to the state's newspaper editors about Hulsey's refusal to meet with a constituent to discuss his role in the recent events.

shiloh said....Totally disagree, it's a typical Goggle political blog w/a 100% political slant ie conservative. If AA wanted to be taken seriously, she would upgrade her blog and require membership."

Well you see what you want to see. You surprise me dude. You libs are always talking about nuance and you can't see it when it is biting you in the ass.

Generally most of the commenter’s here are conservative. But there are several thoughtful and well spoken liberals such as Madison Man, Beth, somefeller, our pal roachy, garage and Robert Cook for the people who like to sit along the left field line. They often get in interesting and intelligent discussions with even the most rabid of righties. And they are respected if not agreed with for their opinions. Generally people get along.

The idea that commenter’s must be registered and moderated is totally in violation of the spirit of the salon the blogger lady is trying to create. I must say that lately she has been failing woefully because she and New Media Meade have been consumed by the picayune pension dispute amongst a miniscule segment of an obscure Midwestern State. Vital matters such as American Idol, The Celebrity Apprentice and the Real Housewives of Miami have been ignored. Photo’s of dogs urinating and strange sexually shaped fruits and vegetables at the Farmer’s Market have not been taken. I mean we haven’t even had posts praising washed up overrated has-beens like Bob Dylan, Woody Allen or the current members of the Cincinnati Reds. The spirit of this meeting place is flagging and needs to be reinvigorated.

You can be part of that. You definitely have a good sense of humor and don’t take yourself too seriously. You can add an important voice. A liberal voice with a sense of humor is really needed here. It just gets boring hearing about how this is just a conservative echo chamber and no big deal and how this place should be run to your specifications. If you don’t have something fun or interesting or controversial to bring to the table then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

You don’t have to be a complaining troll. It is getting repetitive and almost as boring as Cedarford hating on the Hymies or Garage telling us that Governor Walker is so hated that his mother is going to try to abort him or something. You can be an elf or something. Enough already.

"I've seen your stuff." What did he see that's so scary? The worse stuff is video of him avoiding Meade. His own unreasonable fear scares him? It is a bad look, but he is in control of the whole thing. Just stop and make your argument. Does he think Meade is a Ninja or what? This guy is a very weak man. I think the term is "punk". Sorry, but it fits.

Real Housewives Of Miami is nothing. I just read in the NY Post that there's going to be a show about mafia wives, not sure of the title unless it's Mafia Wives, but it's gonna be REAL physical. Like knockdown dragout stuff.

If this were a "conservative echo chamber", would you and your fellow moonbats be allowed to speak your minds on this blog? Wouldn't your posts be deleted?

If you deleted his or other opposing posts, you wouldn't have evidence of how WINNING!1! your views are! As every good Charlie Sheen wanna-be knows, you can't be a "winner" unless you've designated a "loser".

Don't be ridiculous. Most stodgily ingrained partisan sites allow others to post; they just jump on opposing viewpoints for arbitrary reasons - as is more often than not the case here.

Divide the number of "customary" comments here that are intended to ridicule by the number of comments intended to enlighten, inform, debate or reason. I guarantee you that the ratio will be greater than 1. When attempting that calculation with the opposition's comments, you will not find that to be the case.

People will deviate from time to time from the accepted aim of establishing conformity here, it's just not all that often. Better than on larger political sites, I'm sure (which is why I like it; every now and then a good, well-reasoned opposing argument stands a chance - well, that and the humor). But still not as free-wheeling and open to viewpoint diversity as many good blog sites.

I have a couple of actual Mob wives from the neighborhood who shop in the store.

What they are looking for in paticular is longer dresses that fit just right so that when they sit on their man's lap during visits they can have sex through the clothing even when they are not having an official "Conjugal" visit.

I think since the abortion happened early on in the conversation that it is probably OK. Even if the conversation was more than 2/3's of the way thru, the planned parenthood group would probably feel it was Brett's right. I mean, why should he be forced to bear with an unwanted conversation with Meade?

But there are several thoughtful and well spoken liberals such as Madison Man, Beth, somefeller, our pal roachy, garage and Robert Cook for the people who like to sit along the left field line. They often get in interesting and intelligent discussions with even the most rabid of righties.

I guess the rabid tone is deafening when put up alongside all the supposed compliments you believe these people are paid.

And they are respected if not agreed with for their opinions.

They are respected for being meek, which amounts to being honorable in their defeat - something righties can respect. They are not respected for putting forward an opinion stated well enough to actually provoke thought and challenge others' viewpoints - which is really what counts. Even if you don't completely agree, allowing for the idea that the challenge could possibly be successful is a much more respected form of dialogue.

The problem is, a polite tone isn't worth much from someone with conviction if you've decided beforehand that they are ultimately supposed to be on the losing side of everything. Even if it's just everything in politics.

Sorry Trooper, but I'm going to have to register a bit of disagreement here. The most vocal of the righties here are the most closed in their viewpoints and for some of us this doesn't seem like a respectable way of going about things - even if you're willing to have more and more Christians being fed to these lions. Respect should entail something more than just mercy or politeness.

(Also, if you want to respond to the point: The supposed respectability of "Madison Man, Beth, somefeller, our pal roachy, garage and Robert Cook"'s opinions, you would have addressed THAT. But you didn't.)

I wouldn't call those people meek Ritmo. Certainly Beth will rip you a new one when you deserve it. And Robert Cook is not meek. A geek maybe but not meek. And how would you call garage meek?

Some of them don't like to mix it up the way you do. But isn't that your personal preferance. I mean I have seen you have great civil discussions with traditional guy and RogerJ. It is all how it strikes you at the moment. You do what you feel at the moment. Like any of us. We are none of us "All of a piece." Not me. Not you.

I take back any assertion that Cook is meek. And garage doesn't mind his cheesy, unobjectionable one-liners. I'll grant you that. OTOH, if anyone baited me with baseless accusations of "jew hater" (or whatever) as much as I've seen him receive, I guarantee I would have fought back much more fiercely on that. Wouldn't the majority of Althousians on the right do the same?

Also, maybe Cook doesn't mind being called a "commie" half the time. But would it be aggressive for me to take strong exception to that if a number of people did that as often with me?

With Beth, I'd guess I'll have to pay closer attention to her warrior nature.

The other side is certainly not all of a piece, and some of them I'm getting to understand better and better. I just don't think there are as many of them who are so willing to concede fallibility or open-ness in their viewpoints, which almost prompts you to find the uncomfortably personal reasons that give them such strong conviction. If their reasons weren't as personal, they wouldn't make them so contentiously or be as defensive.

shiloh - you are such a plain lefty ideologue that it took all of 2 seconds to figure out your mission on this blog was to insult everyone not as loony leftwards as yourself. But keep the delusion that you are doing grand, bold, intelligent work here.

Troop, there is only a small, core group who are like that - most of the righties are a lot more civil. But they do form a very vocal group. A very colorful group, as well - which is probably what prompts my equally colorful responses. But your point is valid.

It's hard for a pol to control his public image. I wonder if one of the difficulties Meade faces is that his camera is unflattering compared to that of the msm, so that even favorable edits and sound bites may make the man look amateurish. To some degree the very presence of mass media injure politics by making image too literal.

Speaking of echo chambers, I found the similar reaction of police and politician to the camera to be disconcerting. I wonder if the cops concern doesn't stem from experience with manipulation and the false framing of any camera angle, or that the camera is merely a visual distraction, or always feels like some sort of escalation (which I think it is).

So by your definition, shiloh deserves no respect with his polite sounding partisan slams against Althouse.

Shiloh is polite and open-minded.

So yes, that's respectable by me. The latter is what counts.

He (and to some extent, I) criticize what we perceive to be a rather arbitrary basis for how Althouse decides how she will side, and for exploring arguments for or against something in good detail, but not in a way that is intellectually honest regarding the position she opposes.

When she gives that much detail, it gives the impression that she has fairly considered the argument she wishes to bash, but it is a hollow impression. It's all about framing - as she must know - and it's fairly obvious to a number of us that she often chooses to frame things in very slanted ways.

It would be more honest if she said that she just didn't care to find the best argument for something that she didn't agree with.

Like many of us, she tends to take a lot of things personally - and that's her right. Of course, it's easy for most of us to identify with. But it would be more respectable to me if she were to allow for some fallibility as a blogger. Commenters have a lower bar to set - but if you want to seem less partisan than authoritative as an actual blogger, it's impossible to let your sense of your own reputation scare you into being too defensive.

You have a lot to learn about being fair, Alex. When you use words like "THUGS" (all caps in the original) it is obvious that you have your mind made up and that it doesn't get any more complex for you than who are the bad guys. So anyone opposing them must be "good guys".

Listen, if you want to read a fairy tale or nursery rhyme, you will find a lot of commentary on good versus evil and "good guys" versus "bad guys". But when people disagree about simple issues of policy, do you really think that everything comes down to a struggle to save the world of the forces of good from the forces of evil?

Is that really how you look at life and American society?

Is it?

Do you think it's a good way for public officials to lead the country?

shiloh - Althouse gets a huge amount of unique hits per day and a very large commenting user base. It's not a "garden variety" blog by any means. But keep hurling the insults, I'm keeping a database of them.

Shiloh you should realize that Alex is a Mobey you takes different sides of an issue depending on how the mood strikes him. If you had followed his comments over the last few months you would realize he is not indicative of the regular conservative posters who are analgous to the liberal ones I cited. People like HoosierDaddy, Dust Bunny Queen, Freeman Hunt, traditionalguy, The Drill Sgt and chickelit are normally calm and reasonable posters. I mean they wig out every once and a while but that's fun don't ya think.

Now let me be clear. I don't claim to be able to discern what the proper way to post or the proper attitude or what rules or regulations there should be. I like the free form where everyone can say what ever they want.

I have also heard of corporate crime and companies influencing policy by bribing policymakers in ways that are destructive to the country.

So what? That is not the point, either.

I am of the opinion that breaking unions is a political move to weaken democrats, but more importantly, breaking public unions opens public officials to stuffing positions with lackeys and promises of patronage in a way that is more egregious than you would find nowadays.

I would ask you to read up on someone called "Boss Tweed" and Tamany Hall, a situation that was rampant before the current set-up (which Republicans such as Teddy Roosevelt helped institute). But obviously that would not be as glamorous and exciting and martyrdom-seeking as talk of the mafia and scabs - which is much more relevant to the world of today in which you live.

Earlier I asked you to step outside of a pre-Nietzschean framework. Now I realize that it might be too much for you to go beyond TV-land and look at the actual history of public unions and what is at stake when Walker promises to take us back to the times of 18th century political jobs. -- Not an improvement.

Again, I apologize for asking if you might want to inform yourself of the actual history of corruption in your country before confidently opining on how it should be dealt with.

Hey, let's rally to give tax payer funding to killing American children in the womb. Hip Hip Hooray. Leftards are sickening death cultists and these rallies do nothing but celebrate their disdain for life, by inversely celebrating death.

Trooper, Alex is probably just a kid and doesn't take a consistent side because he hasn't been informed of a good reason for taking either. And who could blame him?

However, he does have the loud-mouthed conviction thing down pat.

Isn't that at least as much of a problem? Doesn't that say something about the country that a belligerent sense of conviction has become more important to these kids than actual consistency in how they think about things?

I have also heard of corporate crime and companies influencing policy by bribing policymakers in ways that are destructive to the country.

Oh, you mean through the tax code? Of course, wouldn't you agree? Or are you just going to pander your typical leftard tripe of how corporate glad-handing of the political process is evil and shouldn't be done. You would rather squelch the speech of others for your own benefit? Because that is in essence what you are advocating, in total antithetical notions for what you allegedly stand for. You're a liar and a fraud.

Oh, so the you, the little dead-ending, self-professed thread crapper who constantly and consistently shows up to lie and commit factual fraud while ending up on the wrong side of every argument, would even bother to string your useless, nonsensical words together to form some type of incoherent thought that you think people actually give a shit what you say or think?

Let me paint a picture for you of rubbing my thumb and index finger together to play the worlds smallest violin at your maudlin demonstration.

I 'like' how the assemblyman changed his tune from "I didn't give you permission" to "you asked my permission and I don't give you permission" in the video. As if Meade NEEDED to ask permission in the first place, much less get permission to film a public figure in a public place.

It's easy to see the sense of entitlement among those who believe they, not the people, are the best arbiters of what should be done for the people, er, union leaders.

Meade, why don't you run against this tool? That would be entertainment on the scale of Kaus... except you'd be more likely to get some response from your opponent.

Further, its incoherence made me think of the poor state of mental health care in this country.

It was, however, just rambling and paranoid enough for me to believe that its insanity would not go unnoticed. It also reminded of others, more seriously ill than he, who have made astounding recoveries.

Oh, so the you, the little dead-ending, self-professed thread crapper who constantly and consistently shows up to lie and commit factual fraud while ending up on the wrong side of every argument, would even bother to string your useless, nonsensical words together to form some type of incoherent thought that you think people actually give a shit what you say or think?

Let me paint a picture for you of rubbing my thumb and index finger together to play the worlds smallest violin at your maudlin demonstration.

I am looking for a word within this manifesto of hatred that doesn't scream out "Zyprexa!"

You know, Meth-Guy, straightjackets and ECT might be of benefit. Have you asked your nurse about these things?

Trooper: Take notice of this little darling and how he fits into what we were discussing upthread.

C4 - explain why in 2011 we need public sector unions. I think the doctors handing out fake medical permission slips to union protestors is all the final proof I needed of their corruption. Yet you want us to encourage unions.

"I have also heard of corporate crime and companies influencing policy by bribing policymakers in ways that are destructive to the country."

Of course, but unions do that AND their thuggery. You don't have to support such a corrupt business except when Obamacare makes you, but unions force support out of every paycheck whether you are in them or not. Members get hit up twice.

Business uses very little of its money for political influence, but it's the Raison d'être for most unions.

C4 - I noticed that the newest, newest, NEWEST meme of the left is to reference 100+ year old horrors like the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. As if Scott Walker is trying to MURDER union workers. Isn't that the subliminal messaging? Oh and the earlier "Republicans are WMDs"? Is that your NEW civility?

Well Ritmo everybody is entitled to their opinion and Methadras likes to mix it up as much as you do. As does shouting thomas. Everybody has their technigue. Far be it for me to critizie.

Which was the point of Shiloh's critque after all. He wants rules and regulations and control and order. The evil blogger lady and I both agree with the free and unfettered utterance of any ideas people want to post.

Different styles are what mades a fight. Some guys are sluggers and just throw haymakers. Other's are techinicans who slice away one jab at a time. Either way can be a winning strategery. So to speak.

Sorry to deny your attempt at threadkill, Bag, but this is not about mandatory contributions. Further, the point about corporate criminals was to show Alex that neither their crime or those of mobsters was the issue.

Although, as an inhabitant of the land of Erin Brokovich, is that the discussion you'd prefer to have?

At some point you can't get around the Boss Tweed sensibility in your support for Gov. Walker's incredibly unpopular approach. Don't tell me you prefer to be as uneducated as Alex on Tammany Hall.

Is American history no longer taught in our high schools? This is a basic staple of late 19th century political history in America and you guys are proudly proclaiming your ignorance of it. It's why public unions exist in the first place.

It's hard to take someone seriously who wants to radically alter the status quo while staking his claim on his ignorance for why that status quo came to be in the first place.

Ritmo - the reason I didn't respond to your Tammany Hall bait is because it's irrelevant to 2011. Unions today are utterly corrupt and need destroying. Scott Walker is a modern day hero and I hope he steamrolls the unions BIG TIME.

Even Shouting Thomas has broken down to me in a very humble display of civility that I found quite touching. I respect him more for it. Even though he still loses it regularly, I can at least respect that there are human things about him that he admits to. It has impacted our interaction in a positive way.

Successful advocates for causes have confidence, and are (time willing) wanting to meet with citizens and journalists to press their case. People used to say that Clinton could win anybody over in a one-on-one, and he and you both enjoyed it.

So it's obvious then what's going on when you don't want to be meet with your customer, and have your customer record the conversation. Opportunity knocks, and you run and hide.

He lacks confidence that his ideals and actions can withstand the withering disinfectant of sunlight. He can only operate when he keep Us the People in the dark. Hmm, that behavior reminds me of something ...

Unlike you I don't pick and choose my American history as to what is relevant and what is not. I notice you completely skip over the history of unions + organized crime.

Who is cherry picking what? How is organized crime more relevant to the right to non-political representation and collective bargaining than the Tammany Hall situation that more closely resembles what political workers would face if you and Scott Walker had your way?

Don't you think there is a reason why this situation is polling so poorly for your position? Do you care to understand why?

Or do you just think it's cool to go on and on about irrelevancies such as organized crime? That has nothing to do with this.

Don't you think there is a reason why this situation is polling so poorly for your position? Do you care to understand why?

MSM. They demonize Scott Walker 24/7 and I'm shocked he gets even 20% approval rating. There is no rationality to supporting public sector unions. Your hero, FDR warned us about them.

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."

shiloh said"If AA wanted to be taken seriously, she would upgrade her blog and require membership."

That implies rules and regulations and people getting banned and their freedom of speech being controlled by moderators. Anyone who has been on the net for a while has encountered places like that. This is not one of them.

I very much admire the evil blogger ladies devotion to free speech. It is her most admirable quality in my humble opinion. And just about the only thing we totally agree on.

FDR had credibility when writing that because he was convinced that every worker should be treated much more fairly than his opponents did.

FDR is specifically referencing striking - not at issue here.

I brought up T.R., Boss Tweed. Public unions don't just protect their members. Why do you think corruption would be less of a problem if every job was just filled with a hand-picked crony of the politician, who could then set the pay and benefits, etc.?

It's not irrelevant to 2011 if you and Scott Walker want to reverse the situation to better resemble what it was under Boss Tweed.

Huh?

Boss Tweed was a corrupt Democrat who used government to advance both the power of his fellow Democrats and enrich himself. He used bribery to gain support, and theft to take what he saw as his rightful share. He was eventually laid low when his theft was revealed and punished.

The beauty of modern political corruption is that much of it has been legalized. Instead of bribes we have lavish benefits for the favored voting blocs. The theft is legalized through government contracts, subsidies, short term jobs that pay grandly (Rahm Emmanuel, Investment Banker, comes to mind.)

It's all very legal. All it requires is taxation and spending that benefits your pals.

I know that if this was a closed shop like boringheads I would not have met such interesting and diverse commenter’s as Ritmo, Robert Cook, Fen, shouting thomas, garage mahal and our good buddy roachy who is the Larry Fine in this group of stooges.

Awright. Even Rev is starting to make sense to me now. I think I'm going to have to get a hamburger. Cheers y'all if I don't see you soon. And always my best to the Troop. Usually we do have more to agree on - even when it's NOT just titties and hijinks.

The arrogance and contempt Hulsey displays toward someone he knows is a constituent illustrates why I have a higher regard for convicted pedophiles than most elected officials. 3/25/11 3:48 PM

Sorry, but I must ask. Does this mean your regard for convicted pedophiles is greater than your regard for most elected officials, or does it mean that among all those who are elected officials (which must mean that you are one of them, an elected official) you regard convicted pedophiles higher than other elected officials regard convicted pedophiles?

While abortion is a horrible thing, I'm having trouble seeing how convicted pedophiles fit into this. Are any of the principals involved pedophiles? What are your feelings about unconvicted pedophiles? Or even un-indited pedophiles? Or pedophiles with no convictions? Does being a pedophile with no convictions mean they haven't yet encountered law enforcement, or is that equivalent to having no morals?

Actually, since this is at a Planned Parenthood rally, and abortion in this context means ripping the life an unborn innocent from it's mother's womb, "aborting" the conversation is a rather sick pun. In another context saying "We had to abort the mission" would be fine. But given the setting, a little restraint would have been appropriate. Regardless of Ann's opinion on the morality or legality of abortion, I would have expected less cuteness more gravitas and respect from her.